When can current beta testers official speak about the beta publically? I will give my opinions once I know for sure that it's ok to do so.
Also what's up with the MODS asking us to keep the opinions positive? I would think being constructive is a lot more productive than just asking for positive only.
As for the first: my current assumption is that the NDA, as relates to the current state of beta, is released as of Monday, but details of beta procedures are still protected. We're still awaiting an [O]fficial statement from Sean.
On the second: that was an unfortunate canned response by the ORC in question. The point was to head off the direction the second post was trying to go. All feedback, positive and negative, is enocouraged. What I want to see (and what will actually be useful) is feedback on specific elements: "I like the way chat windows can be separated", "I hate the way binders work", etc. I do not want generic blanket statements that aren't useful to anyone, or that complain about something that isn't GUI related: "v4 is worse in every way (no examples given)", "what about leagues", etc.
I'm still considering feedback options, but I think I am going to set it up as we have it on the closed beta board: a catch-all thread for each of the major GUI areas (6-10 threads). This should (a) make it easier to have discussions (b) make it easier for WotC to collect the feedback and (c) not completely swamp the board with beta talk.
As for the first: my current assumption is that the NDA, as relates to the current state of beta, is released as of Monday, but details of beta procedures are still protected. We're still awaiting an [O]fficial statement from Sean.On the second: that
Will old saved decks be compatible with the new client? It was very, very disappointing and helped drive me off MTGO for years that all my old decks I'd carefully cultivated were lost with the old client in the 2.0->3.0 disaster. (I still haven't rebuilt many of them.)
If they are saved locally, yes. But, that was true in 2.0->3.0 too. Netdecks I'm not sure about.
Good to hear, but pretty sure that was not true at some transition for local decks either. (Possibly 1.0->2.0 then? But I don't think so) I had a bunch of decks and the formats weren't compatible and the official WotC guidance was "load your decks in the old client, re-save them as text files, then enter them in again!"
But moot if local decks work this time.
If they are saved locally, yes. But, that was true in 2.0->3.0 too. Netdecks I'm not sure about.[/quote]Good to hear, but pretty sure that was not true at some transition for local decks either. (Possibly 1.0->2.0 then? But I don't think so) I had
Will old saved decks be compatible with the new client? It was very, very disappointing and helped drive me off MTGO for years that all my old decks I'd carefully cultivated were lost with the old client in the 2.0->3.0 disaster. (I still haven't rebuilt many of them.)
If they are saved locally, yes. But, that was true in 2.0->3.0 too. Netdecks I'm not sure about.
Good to hear, but pretty sure that was not true at some transition for local decks either. (Possibly 1.0->2.0 then? But I don't think so) I had a bunch of decks and the formats weren't compatible and the official WotC guidance was "load your decks in the old client, re-save them as text files, then enter them in again!"
But moot if local decks work this time.
The original save format was .dec when they transitioned to .dek, .dec was obsoleted. Obviously .txt will work no matter what so if you are worried you can make back ups in that and also DanP said explicitely that netdeck saves will be carried over so you can also archive your lists that way.
If they are saved locally, yes. But, that was true in 2.0->3.0 too. Netdecks I'm not sure about.[/quote]Good to hear, but pretty sure that was not true at some transition for local decks either. (Possibly 1.0->2.0 then? But I don't think so) I had
Wizards has certainly listened to feedback and improved things in the Beta client since I started testing. However some feedback that I consider very important has not been really dealt with. I hope that with the public beta people give massive amounts of feedback that support some of these changes I want.
I guess once the client is live, we can actually start talking about specific changes.
Wizards has certainly listened to feedback and improved things in the Beta client since I started testing. However some feedback that I consider very important has not been really dealt with. I hope that with the public beta people give massive amoun
If i can get it working in wine on mac i'll post a tutorial.
That would be awesome. I don't know if my friends would be willing to do all that, but being able to let them know they have a viable option would be very nice. :-) Thank you!
That would be awesome. I don't know if my friends would be willing to do all that, but being able to let them know they have a viable option would be very nice. :-) Thank you!
You would have a valid point if magic was played only in the US and only among students.
Um, what? I was providing examples. Obviously Magic is played outside the US and by people who aren't students. Those were the quickest stats I could find after a few Google searches to support the argument that Apple is growing as a company. Here are those links again: Link 1, Link 2. Here's another link that talks specifically about Apple's worldwide PC market share.
Magic's target demographic would be people with paying jobs and not students. I'm speculating here but I would say that the average age of magic players is getting higher which should be above the students.
I said Magic's target audience was young people, not students. If you go to a Grand Prix, PTQ, or other large tournament, the vast majority of people there are guys in their late teens or 20s, and a lot of those guys are also students. For kitchen table Magic, I would guess that that the age range is a lot more diverse, but would still include a lot of college students. Are you seriously going to argue that the college student demographic is not important to Wizards?
Tying this back to my original argument: College students make up a not-insignificant percentage of Magic's customer base, and college students are fairly likely to have Macs--much more so than the "average" person, according to here. This, combined with the fact that Apple already has a sizable market share and is growing quickly and steadily in the US as well as globally, means that it would make sense for Wizards to release a MODO client that was Mac compatible. The fact that they haven't done so is frustrating.
Um, what? I was providing examples. Obviously Magic is played outside the US and by people who aren't students. Those were the quickest stats I could find after a few Google searches to support the argument that Apple is growing as a company. Here ar
Just going to chime in to say that one tiny change visible in one of the screenshots will prevent many losses - at least for me. Note the mulligan buttons have been changed from "yes/no" to "mulligan/keep." Perhaps I'm dense, but this will save me so many accidental mulligans.
You can also only 'concede game' on the right-click menu, not 'concede match'. Another potentially match-losing misclick laid to rest =)
You can also only 'concede game' on the right-click menu, not 'concede match'. Another potentially match-losing misclick laid to rest =)
I've been playing on my Mac using a VM for years. I'd much rather they invest resources in adding missing features (such as the L-word) than porting to a new platform.
I've been playing on my Mac using a VM for years. I'd much rather they invest resources in adding missing features (such as the L-word) than porting to a new platform.
You would have a valid point if magic was played only in the US and only among students.
Um, what? I was providing examples. Obviously Magic is played outside the US and by people who aren't students. Those were the quickest stats I could find after a few Google searches to support the argument that Apple is growing as a company. Here are those links again: Link 1, Link 2. Here's another link that talks specifically about Apple's worldwide PC market share.
Magic's target demographic would be people with paying jobs and not students. I'm speculating here but I would say that the average age of magic players is getting higher which should be above the students.
I said Magic's target audience was young people, not students. If you go to a Grand Prix, PTQ, or other large tournament, the vast majority of people there are guys in their late teens or 20s, and a lot of those guys are also students. For kitchen table Magic, I would guess that that the age range is a lot more diverse, but would still include a lot of college students. Are you seriously going to argue that the college student demographic is not important to Wizards?
Tying this back to my original argument: College students make up a not-insignificant percentage of Magic's customer base, and college students are fairly likely to have Macs--much more so than the "average" person, according to here. This, combined with the fact that Apple already has a sizable market share and is growing quickly and steadily in the US as well as globally, means that it would make sense for Wizards to release a MODO client that was Mac compatible. The fact that they haven't done so is frustrating.
In the end though it's all numbers to a business like WOTC. While I agree having a mac version would be great the current version for the PC is very lacking to say the least. I would much rather them have an amazing pc version and focus all resources on that then have a mediocre cross platform version. Really it's the same reason that coders don't really make virus's for the mac. It's not that apple is immune to virus's it's just that it's not worth the hassle of releasing a virus that only targets 10% of computer users.
Um, what? I was providing examples. Obviously Magic is played outside the US and by people who aren't students. Those were the quickest stats I could find after a few Google searches to support the argument that Apple is growing as a company. Here ar
Just going to chime in to say that one tiny change visible in one of the screenshots will prevent many losses - at least for me. Note the mulligan buttons have been changed from "yes/no" to "mulligan/keep." Perhaps I'm dense, but this will save me so many accidental mulligans.
You can also only 'concede game' on the right-click menu, not 'concede match'. Another potentially match-losing misclick laid to rest =)
This is the single best thing about the redesign.You can also only 'concede game' on the right-click menu, not 'concede match'. Another potentially match-losing misclick laid to rest =)[/quote]
Why the hell does the article link to the Magic paper boards and not the MTGO boards? Really don't understand that.
I told Ryan about that five minutes after it went live, and he said he would have it fixed. Can't believe it hasn't yet.
Edit: They did change the "Discuss this on boards" link, so perhaps the issue was misunderstood. Following-up.
2nd Edit: Fixed now.
I told Ryan about that five minutes after it went live, and he said he would have it fixed. Can't believe it hasn't yet.Edit: They did change the "Discuss this on boards" link, so perhaps the issue was misunderstood. Following-up.2nd Edit: Fixed now.
I really hope they've fixed this by now, but when I played actually moving cards around (in and out of decks) was painstakingly difficult.
I'd click on a card and drag it down to my deck, sometimes it would move the card, sometimes it would create a box selecting multiple cards. Sometimes it would drop the cards in weird places.
I kept having to do things 2-3 times to get them where I wanted them. I know they were talking about implementing the new draft screen a few days later, so my criticism of that is probably largely moot at this point, but the difficulty dragging cards in and out of my deck was competely inexcusable.
It was there in the deck editor, it was there in the collection screen, it was everywhere. I really hope they've fixed that.
I really hope they've fixed this by now, but when I played actually moving cards around (in and out of decks) was painstakingly difficult.I'd click on a card and drag it down to my deck, sometimes it would move the card, sometimes it would create a b
The new beta is nice. But it's different. And it will take some getting used to. However, I think (and I'm cautiously optomistic) it has the potential to be much better then any previous iteration.
But just like the transition from 2 to 3, there is a learning curve.
Seriously? You're kidding, right?The new beta is nice. But it's different. And it will take some getting used to. However, I think (and I'm cautiously optomistic) it has the potential to be much better then any previous iteration.But just like the tr
6)As with the original v3 beta, wotc has ignored many of the issues brought up by beta testers.
Ignored? You have noticed how much has been changed since beta started, right? There's definitely stuff that still needs to be addressed, but I don't think you can reasonably claim feedback has been ignored.
Not piling on here, but I can totally agree with Bubba on this.
For anyone who tries out the new Client just keep this in mind - We as testers can't expect everything to get changed that we ask for. We can't expect everything to be changed at this point that we have asked for.
What we can do is keep asking and point out why changes need to be made.
Alot has improved, alot needs to improve, but only Wotc will make them change or not.
Remember they are still asking for feedback for changes.
So everyone needs to make suggestions and give feedback, be it negative or postive. Joe
Ignored? You have noticed how much has been changed since beta started, right? There's definitely stuff that still needs to be addressed, but I don't think you can reasonably claim feedback has been ignored.[/quote]Not piling on here, but I can total
I've been playing on my Mac using a VM for years. I'd much rather they invest resources in adding missing features (such as the L-word) than porting to a new platform.
First off, thanks Bubba for starting this thread as well as creating a Beta Info post (which you can find here, and make sure to check back for updates on Monday).
It looks like a lot of you are as excited for the new client as we are. In response to those who participated in the closed beta and want to share your experiences, you're free to do so now that we're getting ready for the Sneak Peek. Just make sure you've checked out the latest version so we can avoid potential confusion over elements that changed between client updates.
That said, here are a couple important things I want to stress:
1) Any actions players perform during the Sneak Peek will affect your actual Magic Online accounts. The interface may be different, but the effects are still permanent as if you were using the current MTGO client, so don't get crazy and start trading all your Helvaults for Llanowar Elves.
2) Everyone is free to discuss their experience during the Sneak Peek and those discussions can continue once the Sneak Peek is over, but those who continue forward with additional testing will be bound by the same NDAs as before, and no new info can be shared outside the beta boards until the Wide Beta Period begins later in the year.
Other Wizards employees and I will be around to answer your questions on the article as best we can, but the best way to learn what the new client has to offer will come Monday when the Sneak Peek begins. Stay tuned
Hi everyone,First off, thanks Bubba for starting this thread as well as creating a Beta Info post (which you can find here, and make sure to check back for updates on Monday).It looks like a lot of you are as excited for the new client as we are. In
Frustrating that one of the first posts in this thread is saying that everything is worse in the new version. This is unequivally false.
As others have said, there is still work to be done - BUT the new version is strictly superior to version 3. I advise cautious optimism to those who will be trying the beta client for the first time in this open event - things will be different at first, but play a few games, build a few decks, spend some time figuring it out and I think you'll be pleasantly surprised.
Frustrating that one of the first posts in this thread is saying that everything is worse in the new version. This is unequivally false.As others have said, there is still work to be done - BUT the new version is strictly superior to version 3. I a
Its not really that things are worse, its just they're not really better. Its just different.
Positives: Chat - This is definitely the best part of the redesign, I can finally utilize my 2nd monitor and maintain more than 1 chat session easily.
Build deck while drafting - Still some things to tweak here, but it is a lot nicer to be able to deckbuild while drafting.
Negative: No Collection binder - The loss of the collection binder is the single thing that will prevent me from ever switching to the new UI until forced. I feel the collection binder was one of the best features of v2/v3. It displayed all your cards wonderfully, sorted them nicely, and was pretty easy to search. I have always done all my deckbuilding from the collection binder. I would search it to find cards I wanted, switch to the deck building tab and search for that single card, add it, and go back to the collection binder. Removing this is just plain wrong. Now my collection looks like a pile of crap. I'd equate it to keeping your 100,000 card paper collection in a garbage bag. It makes no sense. Deck builder and collection binder need to be kept separate. I've put that on every single survey I filled out through the beta so far.
No Card Preview windows - Both in duels and outside of duels, having to zoom all the time is just annoying, bring back a window for a large card preview.
Neutral: Everything else is slightly better or slightly worse but not to an extreme in either direction. There are definitely some new touches that are nice and the good far outweigh the bad.
If they would fix the 2 negatives, I'd switch to the new UI in a heartbeat. Without at least a collection binder, I won't until forced.
Its not really that things are worse, its just they're not really better. Its just different.Positives:Chat - This is definitely the best part of the redesign, I can finally utilize my 2nd monitor and maintain more than 1 chat session easily.Build de
Frustrating that one of the first posts in this thread is saying that everything is worse in the new version. This is unequivally false.
As others have said, there is still work to be done - BUT the new version is strictly superior to version 3. I advise cautious optimism to those who will be trying the beta client for the first time in this open event - things will be different at first, but play a few games, build a few decks, spend some time figuring it out and I think you'll be pleasantly surprised.
Well said. I don't much enjoy the culture of complaint and hyperbole often practiced here. Even while I have engaged in it myself. Cautious optimism is a good phrase for moving forward. Realizing that what Joe Kewl said is really true.
Well said. I don't much enjoy the culture of complaint and hyperbole often practiced here. Even while I have engaged in it myself. Cautious optimism is a good phrase for moving forward. Realizing that what Joe Kewl said is really true.
Negative: No Card Preview windows - Both in duels and outside of duels, having to zoom all the time is just annoying, bring back a window for a large card preview.
This is the big one for me. I gave up on the beta pretty early because my old PC could not even run it. I would constantly timeout on games and draft picks. But even above this what frusterated me to no end was that I could not right-click zoom on a card. I use this feature like ever 10 seconds while playing currently and was lost without this option on the beta. I really hope they add this back in.
I will try out the current beta and hope it has been streamlined enough to work on my current PC. I had to buy a new one to be able to use V3 and hope I do not have to again.
This is the big one for me. I gave up on the beta pretty early because my old PC could not even run it. I would constantly timeout on games and draft picks. But even above this what frusterated me to no end was that I could not right-click zoom
This is the big one for me. I gave up on the beta pretty early because my old PC could not even run it. I would constantly timeout on games and draft picks. But even above this what frusterated me to no end was that I could not right-click zoom on a card. I use this feature like ever 10 seconds while playing currently and was lost without this option on the beta. I really hope they add this back in.
I will try out the current beta and hope it has been streamlined enough to work on my current PC. I had to buy a new one to be able to use V3 and hope I do not have to again.
???? Zoom is middle-click or a keyboard key on both v3 and v4. In v4 you can even change the keyboard binding for the other zoom method. What's the issue?
???? Zoom is middle-click or a keyboard key on both v3 and v4. In v4 you can even change the keyboard binding for the other zoom method. What's the issue?
This is the big one for me. I gave up on the beta pretty early because my old PC could not even run it. I would constantly timeout on games and draft picks. But even above this what frusterated me to no end was that I could not right-click zoom on a card. I use this feature like ever 10 seconds while playing currently and was lost without this option on the beta. I really hope they add this back in.
I will try out the current beta and hope it has been streamlined enough to work on my current PC. I had to buy a new one to be able to use V3 and hope I do not have to again.
???? Zoom is middle-click or a keyboard key on both v3 and v4. In v4 you can even change the keyboard binding for the other zoom method. What's the issue?
Changeable Keyboard bindings, I love this function of the new UI.
???? Zoom is middle-click or a keyboard key on both v3 and v4. In v4 you can even change the keyboard binding for the other zoom method. What's the issue?[/quote]Changeable Keyboard bindings, I love this function of the new UI.
I've beta tested all along, cause even in beta someone has to lose. At first I couldn't see the cards unless I used the zoom bar which was no help in drafts. I wrote complaints and timed out lots. Gave up and didn't go back for a couple of versions. Finally went back and the cards can be seen. Every major complaint I have had over time has been addressed. A number of minor complaints have not been addressed but I am hopeful that over time and when more people make the suggestions, even those will be addressed. Compare that to the change to V3. No one wanted to hear anything! It was done in a horrible fashion. Thank you MTGO for listening and doing.
My biggest complaint still lays in the new version at all. Its only marginally better in some areas and not an improvement in others. Such as trade. Sure its nice to make different trading folders but it isn't even close to V2 when it had sell and buy areas. Being able to simply have a card for sale for x and leave the computer....well dream on. Maybe some day...I hope leagues beats it in development!
I will be playing in the new version and posting suggestions. I hope lots of people do the same.
I've beta tested all along, cause even in beta someone has to lose. At first I couldn't see the cards unless I used the zoom bar which was no help in drafts. I wrote complaints and timed out lots. Gave up and didn't go back for a couple of version
Well said, Maondas. Folks just try to keep an open mind.
Over the past few years I've looked at reams of studies about consumers general response to change, in every industry from browsers (IE 6 vs IE7 for example) to cars (changing models, interiors, body styles, buttons, yadda yadda)
Change is HARD, and human nature is to resist it.
I'm not saying that all our changes are good, by any means, but what would really help make MTGO better in the long run is for all of you to give it an honest shot with an open mind, take the week+ to mess around, and then tell us what you like and dont like and WHY.
Honest, constructive, actionable feedback. That is, if you want to be part of the solution.
Looking forward to hearing everything you guys hate (and love) about the new stuff, please deliver your thoughts in a manner that makes it worth your time to have written them.
Well said, Maondas. Folks just try to keep an open mind. Over the past few years I've looked at reams of studies about consumers general response to change, in every industry from browsers (IE 6 vs IE7 for example) to cars (changing models, interiors
1) Have they fixed the problems with going infinite? I really hate when I can pick an arbitrarily large number for life/creatures/damage/mill/ect., and have the system drop it far lower.
2) Will the new version allow you to set a repeatable series of effects in a loop without having to repeatedly click?
3) When you start throwing a lot of stuff on the stack, will the system not move slower then a Scornful Egotist on Sorrow's Path ?
Three Questions:1) Have they fixed the problems with going infinite? I really hate when I can pick an arbitrarily large number for life/creatures/damage/mill/ect., and have the system drop it far lower.2) Will the new version allow you to set a repea
1) Have they fixed the problems with going infinite? I really hate when I can pick an arbitrarily large number for life/creatures/damage/mill/ect., and have the system drop it far lower.
2) Will the new version allow you to set a repeatable series of effects in a loop without having to repeatedly click?
Fantastic. This looks significantly more tolerable than the current client, might have to check it out again some time. Still no Mac version, I presume?
Fantastic. This looks significantly more tolerable than the current client, might have to check it out again some time. Still no Mac version, I presume?
Here's my wishlist: I want to start up the client on my power book, pre-join a league, and leave the computer. When I come back I want to find that all the cards I marked for trade have been been auto-sold for a price that's higher then I predetermined, and the client has autojoined the draft with the higest EV and selected all the cards necessary for a winning deck.
Also, I want to client to rub my back, tell me what a nice guy I am, and clean my parents basement for me.
Is that too much to ask?
Here's my wishlist:I want to start up the client on my power book, pre-join a league, and leave the computer.When I come back I want to find that all the cards I marked for trade have been been auto-sold for a price that's higher then I predetermined
Here's my wishlist: I want to start up the client on my power book, pre-join a league, and leave the computer. When I come back I want to find that all the cards I marked for trade have been been auto-sold for a price that's higher then I predetermined, and the client has autojoined the draft with the higest EV and selected all the cards necessary for a winning deck.
Also, I want to client to rub my back, tell me what a nice guy I am, and clean my parents basement for me.
Is that too much to ask?
Is this intended as an impressive display of adulthood or an innocent joke? I'll leave aside the Mac thing and the league thing, but I don't think it's at all crazy to ask for a better trading system.
Is this intended as an impressive display of adulthood or an innocent joke? I'll leave aside the Mac thing and the league thing, but I don't think it's at all crazy to ask for a better trading system.
Here's my wishlist: I want to start up the client on my power book, pre-join a league, and leave the computer. When I come back I want to find that all the cards I marked for trade have been been auto-sold for a price that's higher then I predetermined, and the client has autojoined the draft with the higest EV and selected all the cards necessary for a winning deck.
Also, I want to client to rub my back, tell me what a nice guy I am, and clean my parents basement for me.
Is that too much to ask?
Is this intended as an impressive display of adulthood or an innocent joke? I'll leave aside the Mac thing and the league thing, but I don't think it's at all crazy to ask for a better trading system.
Joke.
Is this intended as an impressive display of adulthood or an innocent joke? I'll leave aside the Mac thing and the league thing, but I don't think it's at all crazy to ask for a better trading system. [/quote]Joke.
Here's my wishlist: I want to start up the client on my power book, pre-join a league, and leave the computer. When I come back I want to find that all the cards I marked for trade have been been auto-sold for a price that's higher then I predetermined, and the client has autojoined the draft with the higest EV and selected all the cards necessary for a winning deck.
Also, I want to client to rub my back, tell me what a nice guy I am, and clean my parents basement for me.
Is that too much to ask?
Is this intended as an impressive display of adulthood or an innocent joke? I'll leave aside the Mac thing and the league thing, but I don't think it's at all crazy to ask for a better trading system.
Joke.
I found it pretty funny. So are we allowed to post videos/pictures of the beta now also? I would love to post a video with commentary about what I like/dislike.
Is this intended as an impressive display of adulthood or an innocent joke? I'll leave aside the Mac thing and the league thing, but I don't think it's at all crazy to ask for a better trading system. [/quote]Joke.[/quote]I found it pretty funny.
While you can discuss your experience about the Beta, please don't post any pictures or videos from the Beta.
While playing on the Sneak Peek, however, you can do anything that you would be allowed to on the current version.
While you can discuss your experience about the Beta, please don't post any pictures or videos from the Beta. While playing on the Sneak Peek, however, you can do anything that you would be allowed to on the current version.
Will old saved decks be compatible with the new client? It was very, very disappointing and helped drive me off MTGO for years that all my old decks I'd carefully cultivated were lost with the old client in the 2.0->3.0 disaster. (I still haven't rebuilt many of them.)
If they are saved locally, yes. But, that was true in 2.0->3.0 too. Netdecks I'm not sure about.
Good to hear, but pretty sure that was not true at some transition for local decks either. (Possibly 1.0->2.0 then? But I don't think so) I had a bunch of decks and the formats weren't compatible and the official WotC guidance was "load your decks in the old client, re-save them as text files, then enter them in again!"
But moot if local decks work this time.
The original save format was .dec when they transitioned to .dek, .dec was obsoleted. Obviously .txt will work no matter what so if you are worried you can make back ups in that and also DanP said explicitely that netdeck saves will be carried over so you can also archive your lists that way.
I'm currently sitting here, on v3, looking at a beauty of a BRw deck I drafted....in RGD That was almost 2 years before v3 was released. So, no, you are very much mis-remembering that .dec files cannot be handled by v3. v3 opens dec files just fine. It can't save a deck as a .dec, but it can open them no problem.
I don't know about the v1 to v2 transition, but there was certainly not compatibility issues with decks from v2 to v3 (and I highly doubt there was from v1-->v2). Yes, net decks were lost, but that's not compatibility, just poor planning by WotC.
If they are saved locally, yes. But, that was true in 2.0->3.0 too. Netdecks I'm not sure about.[/quote]Good to hear, but pretty sure that was not true at some transition for local decks either. (Possibly 1.0->2.0 then? But I don't think so) I had
Here's my wishlist: I want to start up the client on my power book, pre-join a league, and leave the computer. When I come back I want to find that all the cards I marked for trade have been been auto-sold for a price that's higher then I predetermined, and the client has autojoined the draft with the higest EV and selected all the cards necessary for a winning deck.
Also, I want to client to rub my back, tell me what a nice guy I am, and clean my parents basement for me.
Is that too much to ask?
If the client got some of those gloves for peeling potatoes, it'd also de-hair your back while giving the rub down!
If the client got some of those gloves for peeling potatoes, it'd also de-hair your back while giving the rub down!
Will old saved decks be compatible with the new client? It was very, very disappointing and helped drive me off MTGO for years that all my old decks I'd carefully cultivated were lost with the old client in the 2.0->3.0 disaster. (I still haven't rebuilt many of them.)
If they are saved locally, yes. But, that was true in 2.0->3.0 too. Netdecks I'm not sure about.
Good to hear, but pretty sure that was not true at some transition for local decks either. (Possibly 1.0->2.0 then? But I don't think so) I had a bunch of decks and the formats weren't compatible and the official WotC guidance was "load your decks in the old client, re-save them as text files, then enter them in again!"
But moot if local decks work this time.
The original save format was .dec when they transitioned to .dek, .dec was obsoleted. Obviously .txt will work no matter what so if you are worried you can make back ups in that and also DanP said explicitely that netdeck saves will be carried over so you can also archive your lists that way.
I'm currently sitting here, on v3, looking at a beauty of a BRw deck I drafted....in RGD That was almost 2 years before v3 was released. So, no, you are very much mis-remembering that .dec files cannot be handled by v3. v3 opens dec files just fine. It can't save a deck as a .dec, but it can open them no problem.
I don't know about the v1 to v2 transition, but there was certainly not compatibility issues with decks from v2 to v3 (and I highly doubt there was from v1-->v2). Yes, net decks were lost, but that's not compatibility, just poor planning by WotC.
Obsoleted isn't the same thing as can't be handled...
If they are saved locally, yes. But, that was true in 2.0->3.0 too. Netdecks I'm not sure about.[/quote]Good to hear, but pretty sure that was not true at some transition for local decks either. (Possibly 1.0->2.0 then? But I don't think so) I had
My suggestion: Lose the drill-down deck filters or use them as a supplement to the current icon system. As someone who designs UI for hospital systems I can tell you drill down filters are powerful but suck from a user's standpoint. Right now if I want all red sorceries, I right-click the flame and I right-click the sorcery icon. Done.
In drill down, I have to open the color filter, uncheck the other colors. Then scroll to and open the type filter and uncheck the non-sorceries. So much more effort for the same effect. It's the extra clicking and scrolling that slows the whole thing down.
The real honest question you should ask yourself is: What was wrong with the icons/drop downs? Fixed locations means no scrolling and given the screen shot, you didn't gain any real estate. Is there something you couldn't accomplish with the icons/drop downs?
My suggestion: Lose the drill-down deck filters or use them as a supplement to the current icon system. As someone who designs UI for hospital systems I can tell you drill down filters are powerful but suck from a user's standpoint. Right now if I
Agree with jtsarnak. Your UI people should read MaRo's column about the tension between options and choice. Giving users more options isn't always the optimal solution.
The fact that there's no trading shop to post items (cards, boosters, avatars, etc.) for trade is really inexcusable. Having to use bots to provide liquidity is not what a premier game should be doing. It should not be technologically difficult to set up. Select an item (and quantity of it), set whether you want to buy or sell it, set what items you want for it, and you're done. When you go to the shop, you can browse what other people have posted for trade. See a deal you like? Click 'Accept', the UI checks that you in fact own what the poster want, and executes the trade if everything is fine. No having to scroll through the horrendous Market Place screen. You could filter cards to buy/sell the exact same way you filter your collection.
On a related note, WotC needs to create a MiniTicket. You should be able to buy 100 MiniTickets for a dollar. No more needing to trust the bot to keep your balance of less than a ticket safe. It is just a new type of object you can have in your account. The system would allow users to redeem 100 MiniTickets for a Ticket whenever you want.
On an even less related note, just open up the API, let developers make their own UI's.
Agree with jtsarnak. Your UI people should read MaRo's column about the tension between options and choice. Giving users more options isn't always the optimal solution.The fact that there's no trading shop to post items (cards, boosters, avatars, etc
On a related note, WotC needs to create a MiniTicket. You should be able to buy 100 MiniTickets for a dollar. No more needing to trust the bot to keep your balance of less than a ticket safe. It is just a new type of object you can have in your account. The system would allow users to redeem 100 MiniTickets for a Ticket whenever you want.
Technically, that's not a UI issue.
But oh man, do I agree. "Pennies" (or even "dimes") would be fantastic.
Online, I play Pauper only, so I deal in fractions of a tix very, very frequently. It would be very nice to be able to pick up, say, that playset of Fume Spitter s I need without figuring out what else I want and having to get a bunch of other cards too or remember credit balances (or hope they remain.)
Technically, that's not a UI issue.But oh man, do I agree. "Pennies" (or even "dimes") would be fantastic.Online, I play Pauper only, so I deal in fractions of a tix very, very frequently. It would be very nice to be able to pick up, say, that playse
My suggestion: Lose the drill-down deck filters or use them as a supplement to the current icon system.
This is MTGO, just a tad more advanced than DotP. You want simplified, stick to that. I don't care about hospital experience, we're talking about a full featured game client here.
Plus, the current icon system is simply incomplete. It does not accomodate planeswalkers or tribals (or, recently, planes and phenomenons).
Also, the very LEAST that would be needed is to be able to differentiate between, eg., "blue and/or white" and "blue and white".
Please, this is the first thing I see of the client that gives me hope they got it right this time around.
This is MTGO, just a tad more advanced than DotP. You want simplified, stick to that. I don't care about hospital experience, we're talking about a full featured game client here.Plus, the current icon system is simply incomplete. It does not accomod
My suggestion: Lose the drill-down deck filters or use them as a supplement to the current icon system.
This is MTGO, just a tad more advanced than DotP. You want simplified, stick to that. I don't care about hospital experience, we're talking about a full featured game client here.
Plus, the current icon system is simply incomplete. It does not accomodate planeswalkers or tribals (or, recently, planes and phenomenons).
Also, the very LEAST that would be needed is to be able to differentiate between, eg., "blue and/or white" and "blue and white".
Please, this is the first thing I see of the client that gives me hope they got it right this time around.
Theres no reason they couldn't give us both. The icons when you just want to do some quick searching and the drill downs when you want to be more specific.
This is MTGO, just a tad more advanced than DotP. You want simplified, stick to that. I don't care about hospital experience, we're talking about a full featured game client here.Plus, the current icon system is simply incomplete. It does not accomod
I stopped playing magic online when leagues went away (years ago now)
I love limited, but I seldom have the time for a draft that can last several hours.
In a league, I could do a limited tournament, one or two games a day on my own time.
Bring leagues back and I will play magic online again.
I stopped playing magic online when leagues went away (years ago now)I love limited, but I seldom have the time for a draft that can last several hours.In a league, I could do a limited tournament, one or two games a day on my own time.Bring leagues
In the new client, games and chat open a new window. Not a window inside the client, but a totally separate window that can be moved around on the desktop, between monitors, etc. If you have multiple windows open, there is (currently in closed beta) no visual indicator as to which window has focus. (The window on top is not neccessarily the window w/focus) The only way I know of to tell which window has focus is by looking at your taskbar.
One thing I think people need to be aware of...In the new client, games and chat open a new window. Not a window inside the client, but a totally separate window that can be moved around on the desktop, between monitors, etc. If you have multiple win
Will old saved decks be compatible with the new client? It was very, very disappointing and helped drive me off MTGO for years that all my old decks I'd carefully cultivated were lost with the old client in the 2.0->3.0 disaster. (I still haven't rebuilt many of them.)
If they are saved locally, yes. But, that was true in 2.0->3.0 too. Netdecks I'm not sure about.
Good to hear, but pretty sure that was not true at some transition for local decks either. (Possibly 1.0->2.0 then? But I don't think so) I had a bunch of decks and the formats weren't compatible and the official WotC guidance was "load your decks in the old client, re-save them as text files, then enter them in again!"
But moot if local decks work this time.
The original save format was .dec when they transitioned to .dek, .dec was obsoleted. Obviously .txt will work no matter what so if you are worried you can make back ups in that and also DanP said explicitely that netdeck saves will be carried over so you can also archive your lists that way.
I'm currently sitting here, on v3, looking at a beauty of a BRw deck I drafted....in RGD That was almost 2 years before v3 was released. So, no, you are very much mis-remembering that .dec files cannot be handled by v3. v3 opens dec files just fine. It can't save a deck as a .dec, but it can open them no problem.
I don't know about the v1 to v2 transition, but there was certainly not compatibility issues with decks from v2 to v3 (and I highly doubt there was from v1-->v2). Yes, net decks were lost, but that's not compatibility, just poor planning by WotC.
Obsoleted isn't the same thing as can't be handled...
I was more replying to SnowFire's claim that you had 'launder' decks through a txt file in order to get them to the new client rather than anything you said (though I was unsure if you were including "unable to be opened" as "obsolete"
If they are saved locally, yes. But, that was true in 2.0->3.0 too. Netdecks I'm not sure about.[/quote]Good to hear, but pretty sure that was not true at some transition for local decks either. (Possibly 1.0->2.0 then? But I don't think so) I had
Without going into details, these are the most positive experiences in had in beta.
I can trace at least three separate instances where my feedback was implemented. Not that I was the only one who suggested those things, or that they were hard to see, but I did write a post with suggestions that were then implemented.
I was away from beta for almost half a year, and when I came back a few weeks ago, the change for the better was simply enormous. Two biggest complaints that all beta testers agreed on were taken care of, and there were lots of other noticeable improvements.
So, I have high hopes for this one not so much because of how it looks/plays now, but even more because of how responsive the developers are. And a special thanks to you, Mike.
Without going into details, these are the most positive experiences in had in beta.I can trace at least three separate instances where my feedback was implemented. Not that I was the only one who suggested those things, or that they were hard to see,
Its not really that things are worse, its just they're not really better. Its just different.
Positives: Chat - This is definitely the best part of the redesign, I can finally utilize my 2nd monitor and maintain more than 1 chat session easily.
Build deck while drafting - Still some things to tweak here, but it is a lot nicer to be able to deckbuild while drafting.
Negative: No Collection binder - The loss of the collection binder is the single thing that will prevent me from ever switching to the new UI until forced. I feel the collection binder was one of the best features of v2/v3. It displayed all your cards wonderfully, sorted them nicely, and was pretty easy to search. I have always done all my deckbuilding from the collection binder. I would search it to find cards I wanted, switch to the deck building tab and search for that single card, add it, and go back to the collection binder. Removing this is just plain wrong. Now my collection looks like a pile of crap. I'd equate it to keeping your 100,000 card paper collection in a garbage bag. It makes no sense. Deck builder and collection binder need to be kept separate. I've put that on every single survey I filled out through the beta so far.
No Card Preview windows - Both in duels and outside of duels, having to zoom all the time is just annoying, bring back a window for a large card preview.
Neutral: Everything else is slightly better or slightly worse but not to an extreme in either direction. There are definitely some new touches that are nice and the good far outweigh the bad.
If they would fix the 2 negatives, I'd switch to the new UI in a heartbeat. Without at least a collection binder, I won't until forced.
This is my largest issue:
No Card Preview windows - Both in duels and outside of duels, having to zoom all the time is just annoying, bring back a window for a large card preview.
I am now forced to continually zoom into cards which is painstaking.
I also had very large expectations for v4, I would suggest users with the same expectations as I had lower them or you will be disappointed. You have to look at v4 as an improvement to v3. As an aside, I do not have a second monitor and I have troubles with the new chat as it is bulky.
This is my largest issue: No Card Preview windows - Both in duels and outside of duels, having to zoom all the time is just annoying, bring back a window for a large card preview. I am now forced to continually zoom into cards which is painstaking.I
As an aside, I do not have a second monitor and I have troubles with the new chat as it is bulky.
Well the obivous solution to that is to get a 2nd monitor :P
I can see how it would be bulky if you were forced to keep it on the same screen, but I think its still dockable (I think i did that on accident once). Not sure how that would look but its an option.
Well the obivous solution to that is to get a 2nd monitor :PI can see how it would be bulky if you were forced to keep it on the same screen, but I think its still dockable (I think i did that on accident once). Not sure how that would look but its a
The lack of a card preview window is my biggest gripe with the new UI. With the current UI, I can slowly move my mouse button down a stack of cards and view/read all of the images. Now, when I expand a card, I have to release it so that its not obscuring the one under it that I want to look at next.
The lack of a card preview window is my biggest gripe with the new UI. With the current UI, I can slowly move my mouse button down a stack of cards and view/read all of the images. Now, when I expand a card, I have to release it so that its not obscu
The fact that there's no trading shop to post items (cards, boosters, avatars, etc.) for trade is really inexcusable. Having to use bots to provide liquidity is not what a premier game should be doing. It should not be technologically difficult to set up. Select an item (and quantity of it), set whether you want to buy or sell it, set what items you want for it, and you're done. When you go to the shop, you can browse what other people have posted for trade. See a deal you like? Click 'Accept', the UI checks that you in fact own what the poster want, and executes the trade if everything is fine. No having to scroll through the horrendous Market Place screen. You could filter cards to buy/sell the exact same way you filter your collection.
On a related note, WotC needs to create a MiniTicket. You should be able to buy 100 MiniTickets for a dollar. No more needing to trust the bot to keep your balance of less than a ticket safe. It is just a new type of object you can have in your account. The system would allow users to redeem 100 MiniTickets for a Ticket whenever you want.
On an even less related note, just open up the API, let developers make their own UI's.
Agreed on all counts. The fact that the entire trade economy runs on third-party bots that had to step in for WotC's lack of functionality is an embarassment. (And, since there's no API and those bots have to depend on screen-scraping, they won't work with this new client, though I have confidence that their authors will manage to adapt during the changeover period.) Really Wizards, there's no excuse for the lack of a marketplace / auction hall / stock exchange type deal to let you post cards for prices in a non-redeemable miniticket currency and let you buy them from other people.
Agreed on all counts. The fact that the entire trade economy runs on third-party bots that had to step in for WotC's lack of functionality is an embarassment. (And, since there's no API and those bots have to depend on screen-scraping, they won't wo
Positives: Chat - This is definitely the best part of the redesign, I can finally utilize my 2nd monitor and maintain more than 1 chat session easily.
As an aside, I do not have a second monitor and I have troubles with the new chat as it is bulky.
Actually, my least favourite aspect of the new client is the chat window. I think less than 2-3 percent of users have 2 monitors and for single screens the new window is just so cumbersome.
As an aside, I do not have a second monitor and I have troubles with the new chat as it is bulky.[/quote]Actually, my least favourite aspect of the new client is the chat window. I think less than 2-3 percent of users have 2 monitors and for single s
As an aside, I do not have a second monitor and I have troubles with the new chat as it is bulky.
Well the obivous solution to that is to get a 2nd monitor :P
I can see how it would be bulky if you were forced to keep it on the same screen, but I think its still dockable (I think i did that on accident once). Not sure how that would look but its an option.
I have docked the chat, the problem with that approach is it takes up a large part of the screen (like v3) which is less than ideal. What I have seen in the beta is nobody ever chats and just closes the chat window. Maybe that is because it is beta but maybe its the interface... we will see.
Well the obivous solution to that is to get a 2nd monitor :PI can see how it would be bulky if you were forced to keep it on the same screen, but I think its still dockable (I think i did that on accident once). Not sure how that would look but its a
I don't understand why so many have issues with the chat window. You can dock it to the right side and thus is almost the same as v3. You can additionaly make it wider/narrower per your preferences. You can also dock it to the left, upper or lower edges of the screen.
I don't understand why so many have issues with the chat window. You can dock it to the right side and thus is almost the same as v3. You can additionaly make it wider/narrower per your preferences. You can also dock it to the left, upper or lower ed
The lack of a card preview window is my biggest gripe with the new UI. With the current UI, I can slowly move my mouse button down a stack of cards and view/read all of the images. Now, when I expand a card, I have to release it so that its not obscuring the one under it that I want to look at next.
I'm not trying to dismiss your criticism. However, you don't need to release the zoom to switch between cards in a stack. You can:
Hold down zoom Look at Top card of pile Slowly move mouse down Second card becomes zoomed Read card Repeat
While the zoomed card takes up alot of space on the screen, effectively, the mouse ignores it for purposes of knowing which card should be zoomed in. So, you can just move the mouse to a different card, even if it's being obscured by the zoom.
Again, not saying the complaint isn't valid, just that it might be slightly less bad that you thought.
I'm not trying to dismiss your criticism. However, you don't need to release the zoom to switch between cards in a stack. You can:Hold down zoomLook at Top card of pileSlowly move mouse downSecond card becomes zoomedRead cardRepeatWhile the zoomed
While the zoomed card takes up alot of space on the screen, effectively, the mouse ignores it for purposes of knowing which card should be zoomed in. So, you can just move the mouse to a different card, even if it's being obscured by the zoom.
Has it always worked like this? Perhaps I never tried moving the mouse down over a card I couldn't see, which you have to admit is an odd user interface.
Also, I suffer from not having a middle mouse button. I play on a Mac and silly Apple Magic Mice don't have any buttons and only simulate left and right clicks. The point where I was trying hard to work with this, mapping the zoom key in my client preferences wasn't working (bug at the time, but a long time ago).
Has it always worked like this? Perhaps I never tried moving the mouse down over a card I couldn't see, which you have to admit is an odd user interface.Also, I suffer from not having a middle mouse button. I play on a Mac and silly Apple Magic Mice
While the zoomed card takes up alot of space on the screen, effectively, the mouse ignores it for purposes of knowing which card should be zoomed in. So, you can just move the mouse to a different card, even if it's being obscured by the zoom.
Has it always worked like this? Perhaps I never tried moving the mouse down over a card I couldn't see, which you have to admit is an odd user interface.
Also, I suffer from not having a middle mouse button. I play on a Mac and silly Apple Magic Mice don't have any buttons and only simulate left and right clicks. The point where I was trying hard to work with this, mapping the zoom key in my client preferences wasn't working (bug at the time, but a long time ago).
If you zoom in V3 by left + right mouse click, and then keep the left mouse down then you can 'sweep' the zoom over cards. V3 is slightly better since it offses the zoom so you can still see whats underneath whereas the beta obscures
Has it always worked like this? Perhaps I never tried moving the mouse down over a card I couldn't see, which you have to admit is an odd user interface.Also, I suffer from not having a middle mouse button. I play on a Mac and silly Apple Magic Mice
Yeah, as JMason said, this functionality has been there since zoom was introduced in v3.
pcjr, did you know that ctrl + shift + mouse-over is also zoom? I would assume that is easiest on the mac
At least, it was on v3, I haven't played beta in a while, I think they kept that and middle mouse click whilst removing left + right click (may have changed as of now).
Yeah, as JMason said, this functionality has been there since zoom was introduced in v3.pcjr, did you know that ctrl + shift + mouse-over is also zoom? I would assume that is easiest on the macAt least, it was on v3, I haven't played beta in a while,
pcjr, did you know that ctrl + shift + mouse-over is also zoom? I would assume that is easiest on the mac
At least, it was on v3, I haven't played beta in a while, I think they kept that and middle mouse click whilst removing left + right click (may have changed as of now).
Yes, I've used ctrl+shift in V3 on my Mac, but don't usually bother because when I would need to do such a thing I usually have the big-card window open.
left+right click isn't an option for me, the magic mouse doesn't appear to support that (if you aren't familiar with Apple's Magic Mouse, it doesn't actually have any buttons, you just press down on the left or right side).
Yes, I've used ctrl+shift in V3 on my Mac, but don't usually bother because when I would need to do such a thing I usually have the big-card window open.left+right click isn't an option for me, the magic mouse doesn't appear to support that (if you a
Agreed on all counts. The fact that the entire trade economy runs on third-party bots that had to step in for WotC's lack of functionality is an embarassment. (And, since there's no API and those bots have to depend on screen-scraping, they won't work with this new client, though I have confidence that their authors will manage to adapt during the changeover period.) Really Wizards, there's no excuse for the lack of a marketplace / auction hall / stock exchange type deal to let you post cards for prices in a non-redeemable miniticket currency and let you buy them from other people.
A good trading system will cost wizards heaps of money. The less effective it is, the more valuable cards are sitting dead in people's account, which creates an artificial shortage, which means all together more 'new' cards need to be opened to meet demand. (as in many existing cards don't find their way to the buyers market, collecting virtual dust because their owners won't go through the hassle of selling them) So wotc has not much to gain by an effective trading system. People would play mpore with existing cards and less with new ones.
Note to people with large valuable colections : Your cards would lose value if the trading system would get effective, as the supply of older cards would grow when legions of inactive players suddenly get a method to sell their sleeping collections.
@ Bubba: Yes I know
A good trading system will cost wizards heaps of money. The less effective it is, the more valuable cards are sitting dead in people's account, which creates an artificial shortage, which means all together more 'new' cards need to be opened to meet
pcjr, did you know that ctrl + shift + mouse-over is also zoom? I would assume that is easiest on the mac
In the new client, the default is now just Z, but of course you can change the key binding to whatever you want.
Ah yes, that's what it was.
Hooray for custom key bindings!
In the new client, the default is now just Z, but of course you can change the key binding to whatever you want.[/quote]Ah yes, that's what it was.Hooray for custom key bindings!
Since we will be playing our "real" cards in the beta....could I request that I keep the "real" cards in my beta instead of my cards in V3? Just saying......I like having those cards...it was fun to construct....
Since we will be playing our "real" cards in the beta....could I request that I keep the "real" cards in my beta instead of my cards in V3? Just saying......I like having those cards...it was fun to construct....
No more collection binder (sniffle) kinda like the old tables with seated avatars. Then on to unlimited trade binders stored on Wizo's servers. Is it really a good idea to store them for us and not make the local machine responsible for all the data? I can see this feature getting bogged down and causing massive loads. While I agree it's nice to me it makes more sense for the main data to be stored on the servers and the binders somewhat akin to "wishlist" feature and saved on the client machine rather than the host. So far I like what I am seeing. Can we finally make notes on buddies? Is there a /block feature or do we have to buddy them and wait to see if they log back on while we still remember who they were? Trading was very briefly covered would like to see moarrr!!! Well I'm sure all these and more will be answered soon enoughs. Good eve I'm out to go see what is hiding in dark places tonight. Have fun all.
*Best get in on Quehop minigames now while its still the in thing.
First thoughts from a brief perusal of main post. No more collection binder (sniffle) kinda like the old tables with seated avatars. Then on to unlimited trade binders stored on Wizo's servers. Is it really a good idea to store them for us and
No more collection binder (sniffle) kinda like the old tables with seated avatars. Then on to unlimited trade binders stored on Wizo's servers. Is it really a good idea to store them for us and not make the local machine responsible for all the data? I can see this feature getting bogged down and causing massive loads. While I agree it's nice to me it makes more sense for the main data to be stored on the servers and the binders somewhat akin to "wishlist" feature and saved on the client machine rather than the host. So far I like what I am seeing. Can we finally make notes on buddies? Is there a /block feature or do we have to buddy them and wait to see if they log back on while we still remember who they were? Trading was very briefly covered would like to see moarrr!!! Well I'm sure all these and more will be answered soon enoughs. Good eve I'm out to go see what is hiding in dark places tonight. Have fun all.
*Best get in on Quehop minigames now while its still the in thing.
I do have a question concerning the new client. In V3, cards in the decklist are version dependant, so that if I own 4 copies of a card, but they are not the same versions as the ones saved to the deck, they show in teh deck as unowned. Has this been fixed? Also, when filtering by format type, will Deck editor show all versions of a card, or will it still only show the versions from the sets legal in that format?
I do have a question concerning the new client. In V3, cards in the decklist are version dependant, so that if I own 4 copies of a card, but they are not the same versions as the ones saved to the deck, they show in teh deck as unowned. Has this been
For those of us that already have beta access, do we need to DL a different version of the Beta for this phase, or will our beta clients update to use the live servers automatically?
For those of us that already have beta access, do we need to DL a different version of the Beta for this phase, or will our beta clients update to use the live servers automatically?
Will the new Interface allow for an option to go back a step if it is skipped as often happens to me personally (i hate you f2). Something where the opponent has to agree to let you go back as well like they have in other phased multiplayer games?
Will the new Interface allow for an option to go back a step if it is skipped as often happens to me personally (i hate you f2). Something where the opponent has to agree to let you go back as well like they have in other phased multiplayer games?
Will the new Interface allow for an option to go back a step if it is skipped as often happens to me personally (i hate you f2). Something where the opponent has to agree to let you go back as well like they have in other phased multiplayer games?
For those of us that already have beta access, do we need to DL a different version of the Beta for this phase, or will our beta clients update to use the live servers automatically?
You will need to download a new client for the sneak peek. Users who were part of the previous beta will need to un-install their beta client then install the new client.
You will need to download a new client for the sneak peek. Users who were part of the previous beta will need to un-install their beta client then install the new client.
For those of us that already have beta access, do we need to DL a different version of the Beta for this phase, or will our beta clients update to use the live servers automatically?
You will need to download a new client for the sneak peek. Users who were part of the previous beta will need to un-install their beta client then install the new client.
Thank you. Do we have a link (and if not, an ETA for the link) for this yet?
You will need to download a new client for the sneak peek. Users who were part of the previous beta will need to un-install their beta client then install the new client.[/quote]Thank you. Do we have a link (and if not, an ETA for the link) for this
Hi Guys,Just wanted to point out that you'll need to uninstall the previous version of the beta and install the new one for Sneak Peek to work properly.www.wizards.com/Magic/Magazine/Article.a...And Sneak Peek is available now :)Thanks,Monica
I applaud Wizards' approach to present the new client to a wider audience as part of a sneak-peek preview. This gives Wizards the chance to obtain feedback on the new client from Magic players across the board, outside the close-knit small group of beta testers, to get an idea what the big picture is about in terms of what players expect from a new Modo client.
I applaud Wizards' approach to present the new client to a wider audience as part of a sneak-peek preview. This gives Wizards the chance to obtain feedback on the new client from Magic players across the board, outside the close-knit small group of b
1) Have they fixed the problems with going infinite? I really hate when I can pick an arbitrarily large number for life/creatures/damage/mill/ect., and have the system drop it far lower.
2) Will the new version allow you to set a repeatable series of effects in a loop without having to repeatedly click?
These are not UI issues, so no.
#2 is definately a User Interface issue. Streamlining repeatable effects is just like placing all identicle creatures in an organized pile. It clears clutter, smooths out play, makes the game easier to understand, and speeds up the game.
These are not UI issues, so no.[/quote]#2 is definately a User Interface issue. Streamlining repeatable effects is just like placing all identicle creatures in an organized pile. It clears clutter, smooths out play, makes the game easier to understan
1) Have they fixed the problems with going infinite? I really hate when I can pick an arbitrarily large number for life/creatures/damage/mill/ect., and have the system drop it far lower.
2) Will the new version allow you to set a repeatable series of effects in a loop without having to repeatedly click?
These are not UI issues, so no.
#2 is definately a User Interface issue. Streamlining repeatable effects is just like placing all identicle creatures in an organized pile. It clears clutter, smooths out play, makes the game easier to understand, and speeds up the game.
#2 is a policy issue, since it enables the infinite loop decks on MtGO. I think this should be done, to mirror paper, but I'm not sure what Wizards policy is on this.
These are not UI issues, so no.[/quote]#2 is definately a User Interface issue. Streamlining repeatable effects is just like placing all identicle creatures in an organized pile. It clears clutter, smooths out play, makes the game easier to understan
#2 is definately a User Interface issue. Streamlining repeatable effects is just like placing all identicle creatures in an organized pile. It clears clutter, smooths out play, makes the game easier to understand, and speeds up the game.
#2 is a policy issue, since it enables the infinite loop decks on MtGO. I think this should be done, to mirror paper, but I'm not sure what Wizards policy is on this.
It's neither. It is not a UI issue because looping would require interface with the rules engine. It is not a policy issue because it is already explicitly allowed for in the comprehensive rules.
And that is the last discussion I want to see on this in any of the Sneak Peek threads. We all want looping handled better, WotC wants looping handled better, but it is outside the scope of this UI update.
#2 is a policy issue, since it enables the infinite loop decks on MtGO. I think this should be done, to mirror paper, but I'm not sure what Wizards policy is on this.[/quote]It's neither. It is not a UI issue because looping would require interface w
It's neither. It is not a UI issue because looping would require interface with the rules engine. It is not a policy issue because it is already explicitly allowed for in the comprehensive rules.
And that is the last discussion I want to see on this in any of the Sneak Peek threads. We all want looping handled better, WotC wants looping handled better, but it is outside the scope of this UI update.
I think this response is kind of harsh. And, since it wasn't in purple I assume I am free to comment on it.
I think adding support for an in-game macro-like ability to make some actions more efficient is a UI issue. While this isn't the same as support for running infinite loops, it is one way to make them more practical.
I think this response is kind of harsh. And, since it wasn't in purple I assume I am free to comment on it.I think adding support for an in-game macro-like ability to make some actions more efficient is a UI issue. While this isn't the same as suppor
It's neither. It is not a UI issue because looping would require interface with the rules engine. It is not a policy issue because it is already explicitly allowed for in the comprehensive rules.
And that is the last discussion I want to see on this in any of the Sneak Peek threads. We all want looping handled better, WotC wants looping handled better, but it is outside the scope of this UI update.
I think this response is kind of harsh. And, since it wasn't in purple I assume I am free to comment on it.
I think adding support for an in-game macro-like ability to make some actions more efficient is a UI issue. While this isn't the same as support for running infinite loops, it is one way to make them more practical.
While it would be a nice stop-gap measure, I don't think what we'd get out of it would justify the effort. Of course, I could be way off on how difficult it would be to implement some relatively basic macros. Still, I figure that if they are going to put some effort into it, they might as well do it all the way, right?
I think this response is kind of harsh. And, since it wasn't in purple I assume I am free to comment on it.I think adding support for an in-game macro-like ability to make some actions more efficient is a UI issue. While this isn't the same as suppor
It's neither. It is not a UI issue because looping would require interface with the rules engine. It is not a policy issue because it is already explicitly allowed for in the comprehensive rules.
And that is the last discussion I want to see on this in any of the Sneak Peek threads. We all want looping handled better, WotC wants looping handled better, but it is outside the scope of this UI update.
I think this response is kind of harsh. And, since it wasn't in purple I assume I am free to comment on it.
I think adding support for an in-game macro-like ability to make some actions more efficient is a UI issue. While this isn't the same as support for running infinite loops, it is one way to make them more practical.
While it would be a nice stop-gap measure, I don't think what we'd get out of it would justify the effort. Of course, I could be way off on how difficult it would be to implement some relatively basic macros. Still, I figure that if they are going to put some effort into it, they might as well do it all the way, right?
I'd rather they first fix everything that still needs work and THEN add something new.
I think this response is kind of harsh. And, since it wasn't in purple I assume I am free to comment on it.I think adding support for an in-game macro-like ability to make some actions more efficient is a UI issue. While this isn't the same as suppor
While it would be a nice stop-gap measure, I don't think what we'd get out of it would justify the effort. Of course, I could be way off on how difficult it would be to implement some relatively basic macros. Still, I figure that if they are going to put some effort into it, they might as well do it all the way, right?
I'd like a macro facility independent of a complete solution to infinite loops. I've played quite a few limited games where I need to repeat the same set of actions every turn (tap potential attackers, increase cost to attack, etc.) which puts me at risk of running out my clock.
Solving the infinite loop issue wouldn't necessarily help with this. But, a simple macro facility might get you through enough iterations of some loops to achive your victory condition within clock constraints.
I'd like a macro facility independent of a complete solution to infinite loops. I've played quite a few limited games where I need to repeat the same set of actions every turn (tap potential attackers, increase cost to attack, etc.) which puts me at
I'd rather they first fix everything that still needs work and THEN add something new.
I can agree with this, but some might argue that infinite loops have needed fixing for quite some time.
Of course, it just wouldn't be reasonable to do so.
I can agree with this, but some might argue that infinite loops have needed fixing for quite some time.[/quote]Of course, it just wouldn't be reasonable to do so.
I'd rather they first fix everything that still needs work and THEN add something new.
I can agree with this, but some might argue that infinite loops have needed fixing for quite some time.
The problem with this may be that there is an enormous segment of the magic community who absolutely loath infinite combos and don't want them to be easily done. Infinite combos are by their very definition non-interactive and thus to many people not fun. That they can be done is a sort of compliment to those who initially figure them out but for the rest it is just solo play with watchers.
I can agree with this, but some might argue that infinite loops have needed fixing for quite some time.[/quote]The problem with this may be that there is an enormous segment of the magic community who absolutely loath infinite combos and don't want t
I'd rather they first fix everything that still needs work and THEN add something new.
I can agree with this, but some might argue that infinite loops have needed fixing for quite some time.
The problem with this may be that there is an enormous segment of the magic community who absolutely loath infinite combos and don't want them to be easily done. Infinite combos are by their very definition non-interactive and thus to many people not fun. That they can be done is a sort of compliment to those who initially figure them out but for the rest it is just solo play with watchers.
Actually, that isn't a valid argument. "Infinite" loops are a part of Magic. Those people want something about Magic changed, not MTGO (akin to stacking damage, for example). It's simply a technical limitation on implementation, it has nothing to do with people's opinions on if infinite combos are good for the game.
I can agree with this, but some might argue that infinite loops have needed fixing for quite some time.[/quote]The problem with this may be that there is an enormous segment of the magic community who absolutely loath infinite combos and don't want t
I'd rather they first fix everything that still needs work and THEN add something new.
I can agree with this, but some might argue that infinite loops have needed fixing for quite some time.
The problem with this may be that there is an enormous segment of the magic community who absolutely loath infinite combos and don't want them to be easily done. Infinite combos are by their very definition non-interactive and thus to many people not fun. That they can be done is a sort of compliment to those who initially figure them out but for the rest it is just solo play with watchers.
Actually, that isn't a valid argument. "Infinite" loops are a part of Magic. Those people want something about Magic changed, not MTGO (akin to stacking damage, for example). It's simply a technical limitation on implementation, it has nothing to do with people's opinions on if infinite combos are good for the game.
Every reason does not have to be entirely logical to be valid. Emotions/feelings are valid responses to discomfiting situations and they are something people take into consideration. There is a reason why magic has changed and evolved to tone down some elements which many have expressed vehement dislike for (counterspells, land destruction, etc). WotC listens.
I am not saying infinite loops should not exist. I do dislike them in general, because I dislike being forced into a situation where my choices are "don't play" or "sit through a solitaire game" and even though you would think (and hope) mechanizing infinite loops would cut down on that experience I am positive they would increase the irritation and annoyance associated (mostly) with multi-player games.
Given a tool, people will use it. Regardless of the social awkwardness or downright offensiveness of said tool. As long as it is a pain in the tuckus to use infinite loops they will be only a minor sideshow in the game. Automating them would I believe lead to an increase in their use a thousand fold.
I think Wizards has shown that they do not want to make it easy for players to use them. I think a case can be made that WotC shouldn't reverse a defacto decision (consciously made or not) in regards to MTGO allowing easy use of infinite loops. But if you are looking for purely logical arguments from the interwebs and people general I wish you luck.
'
I can agree with this, but some might argue that infinite loops have needed fixing for quite some time.[/quote]The problem with this may be that there is an enormous segment of the magic community who absolutely loath infinite combos and don't want t
The problem with this may be that there is an enormous segment of the magic community who absolutely loath infinite combos and don't want them to be easily done. Infinite combos are by their very definition non-interactive and thus to many people not fun. That they can be done is a sort of compliment to those who initially figure them out but for the rest it is just solo play with watchers.
Your argument is fallacious. Once infinite combos are supported then there won't be any waiting or watching any more, it'll all be over in a flash.
Your argument is fallacious. Once infinite combos are supported then there won't be any waiting or watching any more, it'll all be over in a flash.
That something CAN be improved does not in and of itself imply that it is defective until it IS improved.
So: "this does not work as intended" -> something that needs to be fixed. "this could be done in a more practical way" -> a feature that could be added.
That is why arguing "that infinite loops have needed fixing for quite some time" is unreasonable - they are not broken. It is merely less practical than it could be, but they are definitely not broken.
Implementing some handy tool/macro/option to handle them better is new functionality; this is not debatable.
That something CAN be improved does not in and of itself imply that it is defective until it IS improved.So:"this does not work as intended" -> something that needs to be fixed."this could be done in a more practical way" -> a feature that could be a
The problem with this may be that there is an enormous segment of the magic community who absolutely loath infinite combos and don't want them to be easily done. Infinite combos are by their very definition non-interactive and thus to many people not fun. That they can be done is a sort of compliment to those who initially figure them out but for the rest it is just solo play with watchers.
Your argument is fallacious. Once infinite combos are supported then there won't be any waiting or watching any more, it'll all be over in a flash.
I think your lack of understanding of the comment I made is almost funny. It isn't the process itself of which people will object to. People will object to having had their entire game time (prior to the combo) wasted with the end result of an infinite loop. Building decks with infinite loops is not creative or interesting after the loop is known and proven. And enabling them will only make more people want to waste everyone's time with them showing us all how clever they were for figuring them out (even if they are widely known already.)
The way it works now people have to risk losing on the clock, in order to "go infinite." To me that seems a worthwhile risk.
Also what Nushae said is true. This isn't a requested fix of a UI but rather the request for additional functionality, which in theory is to improve usability, but isn't actually broken to begin with. Just less convenient.
Your argument is fallacious. Once infinite combos are supported then there won't be any waiting or watching any more, it'll all be over in a flash.[/quote]I think your lack of understanding of the comment I made is almost funny. It isn't the process
Telir is absolutely right. And in the depth of his thoughtprocess there lies a "no use playing if I dont know the whole format and all its cards and combos".
An inexperienced player typically dont see it comming until the last piece of the combo is there, and then it most often is too late. The know-it-all experienced player instantly knows what the last card of the combo is; artifact, enchantment, creature...you name it. And he can play accordingly to plan/to save a particular card/to tutor up a countermeasure.
Infinite loops messes with a fundamental of MtG in the way that you dont expect an opposing boxer to be able to throw 1000+ punches the 2 seconds your guard is down because you messed up with the footwork. You expect 3-5 fast ones, or a big one, and nothing more.
Loops make things less real imo.
Telir is absolutely right. And in the depth of his thoughtprocess there lies a "no use playing if I dont know the whole format and all its cards and combos".An inexperienced player typically dont see it comming until the last piece of the combo is th
Not coding loops more efficiently because some people don't like them makes as much sense as not coding counterspells. The shortcut is in the CR and therefore part of the game; you'll have to deal with it.
But this whole discussion is STILL not on-topic for the sneak peek. Drop it.
Not coding loops more efficiently because some people don't like them makes as much sense as not coding counterspells. The shortcut is in the CR and therefore part of the game; you'll have to deal with it.But this whole discussion is STILL not on-top
) but when can we expect the beta today?
